The next part of this series is breakdown the introduction PowerPoint Presentation we got in class which i found really interesting in thinking about what terrorism is and what art has to do with it all. The presentation began with a game on determining whether something was terrorism or not. So we will begin with breaking that down. Part 3 will focus on the relationship between Terrorism and Art.
Example to Analyse
The first example takes place in 2016 at the town of Oxford, Michigan where a school shooting involved a lone gunman targeting students and staff, resulting in several casualties and significant trauma for the community. While the event caused widespread fear and disruption, it does not meet the criteria for terrorism. Terrorism requires an intent to achieve political, ideological, or religious goals, and most school shootings lack such a broader agenda. These acts are typically categorized as mass shootings or targeted violence stemming from personal grievances or mental health issues rather than as terrorism.
Verdict: Not terrorism.
An interesting example was Fox News. The mainstream media network has been accused of perpetuating fear through sensationalized reporting and divisive narratives. While this can contribute to social unrest and polarization, it does not qualify as terrorism. Terrorism involves deliberate violence or threats with the intent to instill fear for political or ideological purposes. Fear-mongering in the media, while potentially harmful, lacks the direct violence or coercive element necessary to meet the definition of terrorism.
Verdict: Not terrorism.
The next example is Antifa, is a loosely organized group that opposes fascism and engages in protests, sometimes involving violence or property damage. Republican labeling of Antifa as domestic terrorists stems from their association with disruptive demonstrations. However, general protests, even those involving conflict, are not inherently terrorism unless there is clear evidence of coordinated violence intended to intimidate or coerce for political purposes. While individual acts of violence by Antifa members might meet terrorism criteria, the label is often used politically without sufficient evidence.
Verdict: Depends on context—general protests are not terrorism, but isolated acts of politically motivated violence could qualify.
Leaving the United States we get an example that takes place in Russia. Pussy Riot’s performance of a “punk prayer” in Moscow’s Christ the Savior Cathedral was a provocative act of protest against the Russian Orthodox Church and its ties to political power. While it disrupted the sanctity of the space, it was non-violent and lacked an intent to instill fear or coerce the public through force. Their performance was symbolic resistance and artistic expression, not an act of terrorism.
Verdict: Not terrorism.
Returning back to the United States we have a very divisive example of the January 6th riots. This was when a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, aiming to disrupt the certification of the presidential election. This event meets the criteria for terrorism: it involved coordinated violence, targeted a symbolic institution of governance, and sought to coerce political action by intimidating lawmakers. The explicit political agenda behind the attack places it squarely within the realm of domestic terrorism. However, what is interesting is that those of the American Far-Right and their sympathizers would not view this event as an act of terror probably because that event aligned with their vision of what America’s future to be.
Verdict: Terrorism.
Returning back to the United States we have a very divisive example of the January 6th riots. This was when a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, aiming to disrupt the certification of the presidential election. This event meets the criteria for terrorism: it involved coordinated violence, targeted a symbolic institution of governance, and sought to coerce political action by intimidating lawmakers. The explicit political agenda behind the attack places it squarely within the realm of domestic terrorism. However, what is interesting is that those of the American Far-Right and their sympathizers would not view this event as an act of terror probably because that event aligned with their vision of what America’s future to be.
Verdict: Terrorism.
The final example takes us to Texas, when in December 2021, vandals permanently damaged indigenous rock art in Big Bend National Park, destroying cultural artifacts that had endured for thousands of years. While this act is a severe cultural loss and symbolic violence, it does not qualify as terrorism. There is no evidence that the vandals sought to intimidate or coerce a population or achieve political, ideological, or religious goals.
Verdict: Not terrorism.
Coming up with a definition
Through these examples I see some common threads that are worth looking into deeper. The first similarity among the examples is the fact that these events take advantage of symbolic targets. They involve symbols of authority, culture or governance. It ranged from the Capitol in Washington DC to a sacred cathedral in Russia to ancient rock art in Texas. Another factor in common is that they were all some form of disruption, whether through violence, protest, or vandalism, causing societal or cultural unrest. What is interesting is that some examples (the school shooting or the January 6th riots) were acts that instill fear. Other examples (Fox News and the Pussy Riot) provoked outrage or division. The intention across these examples varied but did not quite met the political or ideological criteria for terrorism.
Based on these examples for an event to classify as an act of terrorism it should have the intent to instill fear, be backed by a political, ideological or religious motivation, that targets symbols or civilians that involves varying degrees of violence or threats. For an act of terrorism to be legitimate there should be evidence of deliberate strategy to achieve broader goals through fear and violence. Hence we can create a tentative definition for Terrorism as the following:
The deliberate use of violence or credible threats, motivated by political, ideological or religious goals, with the intent to instill fear, disrupt societal order, or coerce governments, populations or institutions.
I appreciate doing this exercise because it challenges a concept we think we have a good idea of and also makes us think why we do call something terrorism and when would the term would be most appropriate. All the examples that are not terrorism hold aspects of terrorism. The appeal to fear, disruption, violence and use of symbolic targets are all aspects of terrorism. Hence, if a person sees one of these aspects their mind will immediately jump to terrorism because all those factors are very intense. It would be interesting to see if my understanding and definition of terrorism will chance as I go through this ancient course material.